A class-action lawsuit has been filed in California against Verizon and several third-party companies, alleging that they promoted illegal gambling by enticing customers to pay to enter contests in which there was an “infinitesimally” small chance of winning, reports RCRWireless. “The suit centers on 99-cent charges levied on wireless consumers who played contests associated with popular TV shows like ‘Deal or No Deal’ and ‘Sole Survivor.'” The plaintiffs claim that the contests were less promotional sweepstakes than “illegal lotteries designed to generate revenues far in excess of the value of the cash awarded.”

Comments

Edit Your Comment

Didn’t California rule mandatory binding arbitration on non-negotiated contracts to be unconscionable? They shouldn’t have to demonstrate that the clause doesn’t cover arbitration. The arbitration clause is unenforcable in California.

Can the defendants argue that they are providing a service for the convenience of not turning on the computer to enter the contests? (I believe that you can enter free online, so you don’t HAVE to pay to join, like, say, the lottery…)

@TheUncleBob:
Disagree- there is all sorts of illegal shit I could do to swindle people out of their money. I agree to the individuals it is caveat emptor- but for me it is still illegal for me to be swindling folks out of their money.

@goodywitch: I think you’re right. If coke is running a contest, most people enter by buying coke, but they always have the “no purchase necessary” option of sending a postcard or something in. So isn’t this the same thing, replacing coke with text messages and postcards with the internet.

Sure, you could play online for free – if you could get on the website. I tried playing the DOND game on nbc.com when it first came out. Turns out I couldn’t even get the page to load – it was so busy from the onslaught of traffic. Technically speaking, it was possible to enter for free if you stuck at it for long enough, so I guess that might slip through.

The people who paid money might have a case to get some of those charges reversed. When a third party bills your cell phone bill (buying a game for your phone, 99 cent text message), that amount will be itemized on your bill (or at least it was when I was with AT&T / Cingular), there is usually some way to dispute the amount. I’m not suggesting asking for a refund based on stupidity, but one of the reasons might work for you.

There is no legal justification in california for Charging extra to send a text message to a contest with a prize, thus the extra fee is a charge for gambling. Normally text messages are included in a plan or cost up to $.15 each (pure profit, BTW). The contest “premium” text messages were $.99. Since gambling is generally illegal in california, Verizon’s gotsome essplaining to do…

When I saw this show, I actually had someone fully explain the game to me. I believed that the cases were randomized each round and that you could actually lose this game. I was sad that it was impossible.

I have always thought that those text messaging contests were just schemes to grab cell numbers for telemarketing and that the companies sponsoring the scheme would simply point to the user’s use of the service to show an existing relationship existed before cold calling unsuspecting viewers.

@Riddar: I know, you need a license and state oversight to run a tiny charitable raffle in most states where the prizes are often worth more than is raised, just because of the “gambling” aspect. Seems like yet another example of how big businesses don’t think they have to abide by the same rules as, say, neighborhood associations raising money to plant flowers.

It varies by state, but usually the line between legal wagering (i.e. your office NCAA Pool) and illegal gambling is whether or not the “house” gets a cut. I could run the largest gambling house in the universe pretty much anywhere in the US, as long as I don’t take a cut. Verizon screwed up here by taking a cut and become a “house”.